The Article “Imamate as Righteous Scholars: A Weighty, Necessary but Incoherent Theory” by Abbasali Mansouri, a Critique of Mohsen Kadivar

What is briefly presented in this writing are three points: 1- Critical thinking about the concept of Imam and Imamate in contemporary Iranian society is a taboo and a weighty matter. 2- Although critical discussion of the concept of Imam is a weighty matter, it is very necessary and essential for contemporary Iranian society. 3- The theory of Righteous Scholars, although a positive step in the critical thinking about Imam/Imamate, lacks internal coherence.

The Weightiness of Critical Discussion of the Concept of Imam

In contemporary Iranian society, engaging in critical discussion about Imamate is more difficult than discussing the very existence of God and revelation. And writers in this domain may face swifter and more violent reactions. Because:

1_ In the current understanding of Shi'ism, the color and role of other concepts and components of religion (the concept of God, the Quran, the Prophet's Sunnah) have become increasingly secondary compared to the concept and doctrine of Imam/Imamate. And Imamate has become the most fundamental and inviolable doctrine of religion. And religious zeal and prejudice here exceed all expectations.

2_ Because of the role the concept of Imam and Imamate plays in religious identity, any critical thinking about the central concept of this identity throws identity-thinkers into serious agitation.

3_ Due to the accumulation of negative and critical thoughts by religious intellectuals, the tolerance and forbearance of their audience and opponents has diminished, and they are less able to examine heterodox views with magnanimity and tolerance, and a kind of pessimism and motive-reading, whether intentional or not, has come to prevail. In such an atmosphere, the ground and possibility for violent reactions is more prepared.

4_ Any critical discussion about Imam/Imamate drags the writer or writers into a confrontation with eulogists. And it is clear in advance that in this confrontation one should not expect tolerance, fairness, and theoretical discussion.

The Necessity of Critical Discussion of the Concept of Imam

But critical thought about Imam/Imamate is a necessity for contemporary Iranian society because:

1_ The prevailing conception of Imam/Imamate is such that not only does it not prevent ritual generation in this domain, but ritual multiplication is a requisite of this conception. The constant addition of peripheral matters and customs of pilgrimages and mourning or birth ceremonies of the Imams (peace be upon them) are instances of this ritual multiplication. It is not at all unlikely that a day will come when in the calendar and public culture or the culture of the devout, there will be special days and rituals for carrying the flags of the Imams' shrines, holding wedding celebrations for the Imams, walking on foot to such-and-such an Imamzadeh, holding the celebration of Mubahala, and so on.

This is while rituals are the devotional part of religion, and one must strive as much as possible to preserve rituals and prevent their deviation; moreover, it is not hidden from people of insight and piety that this work causes religion to be degraded into rituals.

2_ The current understanding and conception of the concept of Imam/Imamate is such that its requirement and corollary is to look less at the Imam as a model for living ethically and spiritually and a source for a deeper understanding of religion; rather, the function of this conception is to turn the Imam into an object of religious excitements and emotions and a means for attaining short-term spiritual states, and this means the emptying of the doctrine of Imamate of its principal yield.

3_ The emphasis on the superhuman and metaphysical aspects of the Imams and the neglect of their exemplary and human aspects has caused a large part of society to less frequently quote their words as words of wisdom, and even at times to be ashamed of quoting words attributed to them—for fear of being judged as departing from rationality.

4_ The excessive emphasis on the superhuman aspects of the Imams, firstly, psychologically backfires and drives some people towards insulting and extremist reactions in the discussion of Imamate; secondly, with this method, one cannot invite the new generations—who no longer necessarily choose their religion and denomination by birth certificate—to the teachings of Shi'ism and Imamate.

5_ In a country where a portion of its citizens are Sunnis, the extensive propagation and emphasis on religious occasions that have more of a historical and identity-related aspect than an epistemic one destroys the grounds for rapprochement and tolerance and keeps the hidden embers of differences glowing brighter.

6_ The current conception of Imam/Imamate is turning the doctrine of Imamate into a symbolic and myth-like doctrine day by day, and in this atmosphere, a true Shi‘a is no longer someone who acts upon the practical conduct (sira) of the Imams and follows their understanding of religion; rather, a Shi‘a is someone who upholds the myth-like aspects of Imamate more. In such an atmosphere, the conduct and tradition (sunna) of the Imams are abandoned and forsaken, and we see fewer books and writings on their conduct and the understanding of their sayings; instead, most writings will be in veneration, appreciation, and embellishment of the Imams.

The Incoherence of the Theory of Imamate as Righteous Scholars

The view of the Righteous Scholars regarding Imamate seeks to critique the view of the Imam as infallible. This view has been previously presented by figures such as Seyyed Hossein Modarressi in his book Crisis and Consolidation in the Formative Period of Shi‘ite Islam, but its more explicit and systematic form has been put forward by Dr. Mohsen Kadivar. The claim of the Righteous Scholars view – according to Dr. Kadivar's account of this theory – is, on the one hand, that:

1- The Imam has no divine appointment. 2- Lacks divinely inspired knowledge (ilm ladunni). 3- Lacks infallibility (isma). 4- Generative guardianship (wilaya takwiniyya, the power of metaphysical intervention in nature, albeit by God's permission) is not among the essentials of Shi‘i beliefs and is neither provable nor deniable. 5- In the theory of the Righteous Scholars, the Imamate of very young children and the Occultation of the Imam of the Age are not resolvable (although this theory adheres to Mahdism as the spreading of justice at the end of time under the leadership of the Mahdi, the Qa'im from the Family of Muhammad), and on the aforementioned matters, the theory's position is suspension (tawaqquf) (the impossibility of proving and the impossibility of denying both).

And on the other hand, this theory holds that:

The Imams, alongside the Quran and the Sunna of the Prophet, are the third source of religious knowledge – which did not belong to the early Islamic period and is still authoritative and binding (hujja) today – and their knowledge in religion is not comparable to that of any of the scholars, because their knowledge relies on the "Mushaf of the Itra" and "private, generation-to-generation teaching" (acquired knowledge), whereas the scholars of the Imamiyya have enjoyed neither of these two privileges.

2 - The Righteous Scholars, as the third source of religious knowledge, were "designated" (mansus) by the Prophet and the preceding Imams, and they are obligatory to obey, and none of the scholars have had or have such a position.

3- This theory negates the infallibility of the Imams and instead holds that: The Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) were the most pious human beings of their time; indeed, after the Prophet (s), they are among the most pious of the Righteous (Abrar). They are considered the pinnacle of all Quranic virtues of God-consciousness (taqwa), refinement and purification of the soul (tahdhib wa tazkiyat al-nafs), and purity (tahara) in all ages. However, these virtues are not exclusive to them and are attainable by others as well.

4- The theory of the Righteous Scholars does not negate Shi‘ism as a denomination independent from the Sunnis; rather, while believing in Islamic unity, it emphasizes this distinction and negates the view of those Shi‘as who chant the slogan "Hasbuna Kitab Allah" (The Book of God is sufficient for us) and move towards dissolution into Sunni Islam, specifically of the superficial Wahhabi teachings variety.

However, there is no coherence or compatibility between the two sets of claims mentioned above. That is, one cannot simultaneously believe in both the first five claims and the last four claims. For:

1_ On the one hand, it negates the divinely inspired knowledge and divine appointment of the Imams to God, and on the other hand, it considers them a source of knowledge that, firstly, does not belong to the early Islamic period, and secondly, no human source of knowledge (the opinions and understanding of other scholars) can match it; their word is binding (hujja) and they are obligatory to obey. If we negate divine appointment, divinely inspired knowledge, and infallibility in religious knowledge from the Imam, the fundamental question this theory faces is: in that case, why is the word of the Imams binding? And why are they obligatory to obey? Is their authoritativeness due to the logical correctness of the speech and the reasoning contained within it, or is their status itself the source of the authoritativeness and correctness of that speech?

The proponent of the theory considers the reason for the authoritativeness and being a source of knowledge of the Imams' sayings to be their access to the "Mushaf of the Itra" and "private, generation-to-generation teaching" (acquired knowledge). Regardless of historical discussions about the nature and quality of the Mushaf of the Itra, this justification cannot support the authoritativeness of the teachings issued from the Imams.

For the volume and scope of the teachings received from the Imams far exceeds what could be derived from a single codex; at least part of these teachings would be the result of their own understanding, and part the result of their ijtihad and deduction from the Quran and the Codex of the Progeny. In this case—according to the premise accepted by the theory of the Righteous Scholars—the Imams are not immune from error in this ijtihad and these deductions; therefore, there is no reason for their words to be authoritative. Moreover, since we do not have access to the Codex of the Progeny, we do not know which of their teachings are derived from the codex and immune from error, and which teachings are the result of their own understanding and ijtihad.

It seems that the theory of the Righteous Scholars presents an understanding of the nature of the Imams' knowledge that cannot, from its own perspective, defend its view regarding the epistemic source of the Imams and the authoritativeness of their words and teachings.

2_ The theory of the Righteous Scholars, on the one hand, emphasizes preserving Shiite identity as a distinct denomination and method of understanding independent of the Sunnis, and on the other hand, with its negations and doubts (negation of divinely inspired knowledge, infallibility, and the divine appointment of the Imams; negation of the metaphysical role of the Imams; suspension of judgment on Mahdism and the Imamate of underage Imams), leaves no way to preserve this independence and identity. It might be said that the very justified criticism that the proponent of this theory levels at Dr. Soroush's reformist approach and the necessity of observing boundaries and red lines in religious reform also applies to his own reformist theory regarding denomination and Imamate. That is, the theory of the Righteous Scholars practically advances to the very boundary of negating the denomination.

3_ As previously mentioned, this theory explicitly states and emphasizes that the Righteous Scholars, as the third source of religious knowledge, were "designated" by the Prophet and the preceding Imams, and that none of the [other] scholars have held such a position, and they are obligatory to obey.

But if this designation and appointment bears no relation to divine appointment, what is the function of this appointment? And what validity does it hold? Was this appointment by the Holy Prophet and then the Imams a human and expediency-driven matter? That is, like any leader or king—in the pre-democratic world—who is concerned about what comes after him and certainly appoints the one he deems best in his place, the Prophet did the same.

However, this theory considers the purpose of the appointment to be the introduction of an epistemic source. What is meant by an epistemic source? Is it that he introduced the most qualified jurist and the most sincere individual in his own view (not that the Messenger's choice was a divine choice and appointment), and that Imam Ali is nothing more than an expert Companion whose understanding of Islam is close to the understanding of the possessor of the religion, i.e., the Holy Prophet? The necessary implication of this statement is, firstly, that obedience to the Imam would be meaningless. Secondly, in encountering the words of Imam Ali and his sons, we must behave as we do, for instance, when encountering a statement by Sheikh Saduq, and here the speaker himself is no longer the one who grants authority to his words. In that case, why should we fundamentally have a system called jurisprudence, a significant part of whose source is the narrations of the Imams? (The jurisprudential system and Ja'fari jurisprudence are meaningful and valid for the proponent of the theory of the Righteous Scholars.) Why should we not, for understanding religion, engage with the sayings and opinions of all scholars who considered themselves Muslims and considered their understanding to be an understanding of Islam?

4_ If truly, in the matter of Imamate, there is no divine or metaphysical appointment and selection at work, how does this status of being an epistemic source continue from generation to generation? Such a matter cannot be attributed to chance. We have nothing similar in history where twelve generations of fathers and sons are always among the foremost in a field of knowledge.

5_ The theory of the Righteous Scholars, on the one hand, negates the infallibility of the Imams, and on the other hand, in explaining the status of the Imams as Righteous Scholars, uses expressions that are practically no different from the theory of infallibility. For example, as previously mentioned, this theory holds that: The Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS) were the most pious human beings of their time; indeed, after the Prophet (PBUH), they are among the most pious of the righteous and are considered the epitome of all the Quranic virtues of piety, self-purification and refinement, and purity in all ages.

.

Imamate as Righteous Scholars: A Weighty, Necessary but Incoherent Theory

Abbasali Mansouri

Faculty Member, Razi University